From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff•net>
Cc: Peter Wu <peter@lekensteyn•nl>, git@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] remote: add new --fetch option for set-url
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:55:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqy4qzubf2.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141125040826.GC19301@peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:08:26 -0500")
Jeff King <peff@peff•net> writes:
> However, I think what removed the confusion for me in your --only=both
> proposal was the presence of a "both" option, since it made it more
> clear that is not what no-option means. So what about just "--push",
> "--fetch", and "--both"?
I think that is the set that is most sensible, at least
syntactically, among the ones I heard so far in this thread.
However, one thing still makes me wonder....
After doing "set-url --fetch" and nothing else, because the user
never said "--both" or "--push", does the user get a configuration
where "git push" fails? Or does "set-url --fetch" still gives us
remote.nick.url and causes "git push" to also go there?
If that is the case, then did addition of "--fetch" achieve anything
to reduce confusion?
After doing "set-url --push" and nothing else, I suspect that having
remote.nick.pushURL alone without remote.nick.URL will make "git fetch"
to fail, which would be in line with my expectation. I just expected
anything we do in the name of symmetry or consistency would work the
same/symmetric way, I cannot see how "set-url --fetch" would work to
make its effect symmetric to the "set-url --push" one.
Puzzled...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-25 4:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-19 15:18 [RFC] [PATCH] remote: add new --fetch option for set-url Peter Wu
2014-11-19 19:08 ` Jeff King
2014-11-19 19:42 ` Peter Wu
2014-11-19 20:17 ` Jeff King
2014-11-19 20:48 ` Peter Wu
2014-11-19 20:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-11-19 20:52 ` Peter Wu
2014-11-19 21:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-11-19 20:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-11-19 21:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-11-19 21:28 ` Peter Wu
2014-11-24 21:45 ` Peter Wu
2014-11-24 22:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-11-24 22:16 ` Peter Wu
2014-11-24 22:22 ` Jeff King
2014-11-24 22:47 ` Peter Wu
2014-11-24 22:54 ` Jeff King
2014-11-24 23:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-11-24 23:27 ` Peter Wu
2014-11-25 4:08 ` Jeff King
2014-11-25 4:55 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-11-25 5:01 ` Jeff King
[not found] ` <CAPc5daWh4hnKsTMpaW-TvCmVDfU+rzCezrAHcLgXDG6RVvzXHA@mail.gmail.com>
2014-11-25 11:43 ` Peter Wu
2014-11-25 11:36 ` Peter Wu
2014-11-29 13:31 ` Philip Oakley
2014-12-02 17:45 ` Peter Wu
2014-12-02 23:50 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqy4qzubf2.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff$(echo .)net \
--cc=peter@lekensteyn$(echo .)nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox